Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Abu Usamah/Statements

Initial Statements
I would like to hear both parties' views without complicated discussion in the first instance. To that end, I'd like you both to put a statement below, under your named section. Please don't engage in a detailed rebuttal of the other editor's points for now. I want to get an overview of the situation first.

When we have got to this place, we can then decide exactly what issues are under contest. From there we will hopefully be able to find a solution you can all be happy with.

Basically, a short (couple of paragraphs, maximum) summary of what you believe the header in question should be, and why; why he should/shouldn't be referred to as a terrorist, and why; and whether or not those two articles should be linked, and why. Once this is established, then we can start to work on a comprimise version.

I'm sorry that this may seem complex and drawn-out, but the first week is always the worst, because I need to establish a starting point before I can mediate effectively.

Cheers,  Daniel  06:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo
Thank you for getting this started Daniel, i'm willing to wait as long as it takes for us to sort this matter out so don't worry about it being drawn-out. First and foremost, the header issue. I believe that Controversy is the most appropriate section header, though Controversy & Criticism would be appropriate as well. Two points on this: The next issue is referring to him as a terrorist. Check the article on Terrorism to see Wikipedia's official definition of that. He does not fit that description, as he has not committed an act of terrorism. At first I thought that at the most, the most, he was just a supporter of terrorism (I didn't know who he was before reading this article). However, after this conflict over terminology started I looked up this man on the internet and found a very detailed defense he had released on YouTube, perhaps half an hour long through several videos. He claims he does not support terrorism and that his words were taken out of context. Whether or not he is sincere is not for us as editors of Wikipedia to decide, we just provide the information. Comments calling him a terrorist, a liar, and claims that his article should have an inherently negative tone make me nervous as they pose a possible conflict with the official Neutral point of view policy. Next is the issue of other people being linked: Gadahn is a high profile member of the terrorist group al-Qaeda, while Lindh was convicted of fighting alongside the Taliban. To my best knowledge, those are two cases of not only support for terrorism but also taking up arms against the United States. Abu Usamah not only claims that he does not support terror, but has also not even been accused of anything of the sort. I do not see any connecion or similarity at all between Abu Usamah and those two individuals and again I believe that posting links to their articles is in conflict with the official Neutral point of view policy. That is my initial statement. Thank you for your time Daniel, and I look forward to hearing from you again. MezzoMezzo 16:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This would keep things consistent with other articles on controversial religious figures. As an example, I point to articles on people such as Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye.
 * I don't think that "preachings" would be appropriate because there is nothing that makes that term more apt that others. True, he is a Preacher; he is also an Orator, a public speaker, a Teacher (at the Green Lane Masjid, check their official site), and a polemicist.  I don't see why any of the above terms would be more appropriate than the others; it is an entirely subjective matter, and as an encyclopedia I think that Wikipedia should stay away from such adjectives.
 * Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and
 * John Walker Lindh

Sefringle
I think the best title for the header would be "radical preachings," because the preachings Abu Usamah made wre radical. In his sermons, he called for hatrid of non-muslims, supported well known terrorists like Osama Bin Laden, and made other comments which are deemed as radical in the opinions of many. I figured "controversial preachings" was a fair compromise. I think he should be refered to as a terrorist supporter, for the reasons I stated above.
 * "Criticism and controversy" is inappropiate, as no criticism is discussed in the article.
 * Every source in the article says he is a terrorist supporter. The previous Afd showed his notability was established by sources which say he is a terrorist supporter.
 * Preachings belongs because he made these radical statements while preaching at a mosque.

I added Adam Yahiye Gadahn, and John Walker Lindh to the "see also" section because they are well known terrorist supporters who are also converts to Isalm, similar to Abu Usamah. They are far more famous than Abu Usamah, however they are terrorist supporters non the less. --Sefringle 02:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Response from Daniel
Thanks to both of you for being polite, short and direct. I'm on ACST, so I'll print these off tonight and have a read through, and come back to you in twenty-four hours time with some suggestions and notes for you to have a look at. Cheers,  Daniel  05:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to deal with this in three stages - each issue individually, and I'll start the next one when we can get this resolved.  Daniel  04:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)